MINUTES
MEETING OF THE FACULTY SENATE
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
4:00 p.m., Moore Hall III

In Attendance:   Edgar Bailey, Paul Bazin, Joseph Camaranno, Piotr Chelminski, Joseph Cosgrove, Paul Czech, Norman Desmarais, Patrick Ewanchuck, Frank Ford, Jeri Gillin, Catherine Gordon-Seifert, Michael Hayes, Sr. Gail Himrod, O.P., Eric Hirsch, William Hudson, James Keating, Patrick Kelly, thomas king, Lynne Lawson, Steve Lynch, Paul Maloney, Margaret Manchester, Fr. William Marquis, O.P., Donna McCaffrey, Fr. Thomas McGonigle, O.P., Theresa Moreau, Keith Morton, Wendy Oliver, George Raymond, John Scanlon, Janice Schuster, Raymond Sickinger, Tom Strasser, Sr. Leslie Straub, O.P., Charles R. Toth

Absent:  John Abbruzzese, Lydia Barovero, Peter Costello, LTC Paul Dulchinos

The following members of the administration were present: VPAA Hugh Lena, Brian Bartolini, Chuck Haberle, Dean Mark Nowel, Madeleine Metzler, Carol Crafts, Kathy Alvino, Elizabeth Walsh and Russell Bailey. Several faculty members were also present.

President Ford called the meeting to order at 4:04 P.M.

Opening Prayer:  Senate President Ford led the Faculty Senate in the opening prayer.

Father Shanley addressed the Senate about his views on the Core Curriculum proposal. He began by reading the paragraph from page 6 “Achieving an integrated core curriculum requires thinking of it organically. … and improved continuously based on these assessments.” He said he believes wholeheartedly in that paragraph and endorses all the preliminary section. He noted that the proposal raises questions about priorities and resources and that it will require an enormous amount of work for the administration and faculty to implement. The commitment to the core will result in competition between the needs of the core curriculum and departmental demands.

The Introduction and the mission-related goals are superbly articulated and Fr. Shanley supports them 100%. He likes Part A but said we need to clarify the differences between regular Civ and Honors Civ. The Core Curriculum proposal goes between objectives and recommendations. In an ideal world, we could implement all the recommendations. Fr. Shanley agrees with the objectives but remarked that we won’t be able to implement all the recommendations. He sees no red flags in any of the substantive areas of the proposal.

Fr. Shanley likes the learning proficiencies component of Part B. He noted that Part C raises the most questions. The freshman seminar component is overly ambitious and tries to do too much. We need to clarify it and focus it more. We cannot do everything in the recommendations. Fr. Shanley is not against the proposal but it needs to clarify what we want to do. He is not convinced of the importance of the e-portfolio in all areas of the curriculum. He is not against it; he just needs to be convinced of its importance. The cost of implementing it is not prohibitive; but we need to clarify how it will be monitored and by whom, what is and is not required. He needs more persuasion to be convinced of its value for all students.

The “Dean of the Core” needs to be articulated further. This raises issues in relation to a dean of Arts and Sciences and how responsibilities will be parceled out. Senator Hudson noted that the proposal uses the term “Dean of the Core” in quotes as the position will be a new one in the administrative structure. It needs to be a senior administrator in charge of the core curriculum to implement the vision and to ensure that the curriculum meets its goals and objectives.

Fr. Shanley’s initial estimate of the cost of implementing the proposal is about $2 to 3 million per year and definitely in the 6-figure range, not including capital for buildings which could cost $20 to 25 million. He wonders whether we have the facilities to implement the proposal. We may have to phase it in over time.

The president said that the senior capstone seminar (pp. 32-33) needs more work. We should consider whether or not to incorporate it into the integrative component of the senior seminars. Sen. Keating asked about keeping DWC class sizes as they are now or making them seminar-size. He noted that more recently-hired faculty have had deep dissatisfaction with DWC and feel they can’t be successful teachers.

The president is aware of the dissatisfaction and has tried to listen to what is perceived to be the cause. He thinks it’s due to pedagogical frustration resulting from the need to cover large portions of material and student passivity. We need to engage the students more. In an ideal world, he’d like to have smaller seminar classes of about 18 students. However, changing class size will not necessarily change learning if we don’t teach creatively and engagingly. The proposal lays the foundation for bringing about change.

Sen. Manchester asked if the learning components of the curriculum adequately prepare our students for life in the modern, global world. Fr. Shanley isn’t sure whether the proposal goes far enough in that direction but it’s a step in the right direction. We will need to monitor and assess the curriculum to determine that. He noted that NEASC emphasized the assessment of student learning and that we will have to show progress in five years. He also noted the lack of assessment in the current DWC program and that someone on the accreditation team asked why we were changing the curriculum if we don’t know whether or not it’s achieving its objectives.

Returning to his comments about Part A, the president said he focused on Honors Civ to emphasize the need to further distinguish between regular Civ and Honors Civ. Students will want to know why there is a 0.17 grade differential if the two are substantially the same. Where is the appropriate place to articulate this grade differential?

Steven Lynch responded that Honors Civ has an increased work load with more, longer readings and more papers. He also said that the capital expenses of a new building could be postponed if we change the way of allocating Civ classes and use the entire campus. A building would be an attractive opportunity for a capital campaign but it is better to define the academic objectives before we begin construction.

Father Shanley emphasized that DWC is the first priority in the core curriculum. There is much in the proposal that could be implemented with little or no budgetary impact. His estimate of $2 to 3 million is a first guess at costing the proposal. Where the revenue will come from is still an open question. Whether it comes from tuition increases or a reallocation of resources, it will a lump to swallow.

Sen. Sickinger noted that there are no classrooms going unused and that without an adequate number of classrooms and adequate technology to meet diverse teaching objectives, we cannot implement some of the recommendations. Fr. Shanley said that the NEASC visiting team remarked that we’ve been creative with our existing resources. He thinks we can also apply that creativity to the curriculum review.

The policy of not allowing inter-disciplinary programs to hire faculty presents an obstacle to promoting cross-disciplinary endeavors. Fr. Shanley responded that there has been considerable thought given to the matter and to hiring faculty just to teach DWC.

The Core Curriculum proposal will be presented as a single bill. The president hasn’t yet made up his mind about using a line item veto. He prefers to work collaboratively and, if he has objections to proposals or if something is a deal breaker, he will return the matter for further consideration. There is no constraint to get something done for implementation in the next academic year. Some recommendations may be implemented that soon but the senate should take its time to deliberate.

Minutes:  The minutes of the October 17, 2007 meeting were accepted unanimously by voice vote.

Announcements:  The next meeting will consider a proposal to extend the term of department chairs to three years and a bill to allow non-chairs to chair search committees.

Chris Lydon will not speak about admissions at the next meeting. Rather, the Admissions Committee will meet with him and report to the senate.

New Business:

A proposal was made to request that the Office of Academic Administration, in consultation with the Registrar, explore the feasibility of changing course schedules for Wednesday afternoons to allow for earlier senate meetings and other activities.

Dr. Lena remarked that the new course schedule came from the senate and that the senate should be the proper place to recommend changes. The proposal passed by voice vote.

Academic Affairs I proposed a process for debating the Core Curriculum legislation. Each senate meeting would begin with committee reports followed by a discussion of the curriculum. Debate will end around 5:15 and other senate business will be considered. The question was moved and the bill passed by voice vote with 1 nay.

The senate discussed the proposed process for debating the Core Curriculum and amended the schedule as follows:

11/7 -- AAI introduction of Senate Bill No. 07-08/01/01 “A New Core Curriculum”

11/28 -- Foundational component: Theology and Philosophy

12/5 -- Foundational component: Natural Science, Social Science, Fine Arts

1/30 – Learning Proficiencies: Quantitative reasoning, writing proficiency, oral proficiency

2/13– Learning proficiencies: Civic understanding, cross-cultural understanding, foreign language engagement

3/5 – Integrative component: Freshman cornerstone, e-portfolio, Senior capstone

3/19 – Integrative component: One campus/One disputed question, disputed questions pedagogy, and learning communities; general amendments pertaining to bill as a whole

4/2 - Vote on Bill No.. 07 – 08/01/01 as amended.

4/9- Senate Bill No. 07-08/01/02 taken up, debated, and voted.

The bill passed by voice vote with 1 nay and 1 abstention.

The meeting adjourned at 5:49 P.M.

Respectfully submitted,

Norman Desmarais, Secretary
Faculty Senate